I agree with Jinkies

Jinkies is a superb linguist. He has mastered the art of
communication. If all of you other "people" ,and I use that word
lightly, would just sit back and listen to Jinkies you may just learn
something. By the way, dont even bother trying to win an argument with
him. Simple fact is, YOU CANT. I know he has passed the A+ exam and it
was but a small mental exercise on his part. His knowledge is far
superior then the "smartest" of your ranks.

Advertisements

In article <>, says...
>
>Jinkies is a superb linguist. He has mastered the art of
>communication. If all of you other "people" ,and I use that word
>lightly, would just sit back and listen to Jinkies you may just learn
>something. By the way, dont even bother trying to win an argument with
>him. Simple fact is, YOU CANT.

This post is particularly odd considering I didn't post it! This is very
likely some sort of half-assed 'reverse psychology' trolling attempt, but
taking your post at face value just for kicks, I appreciate that you recognize
my devotion to furthering my intellect the body of knowledge at my disposal,
but I disagree with your statement that people should 'sit back' and passively
soak up everything I have to say. If I challenge people's conventions they
will react. I know that times occur when engaging in an argument is no longer
useful to me, but I find that the beginning of most arguments contain relevent
questions.

>I know he has passed the A+ exam and it
>was but a small mental exercise on his part.

You have no way of knowing whether I passed. I claimed I did pass but I also
claimed that I found it difficult to pass, so if you are accepting me on my
word that I passed, why are you not accepting me on my word that I found it
difficult to pass?
> His knowledge is far
>superior then the "smartest" of your ranks.

What ranks? This is a newsgroup where people who are seeking to pass A+ exams
come for inspiration and information. There are no ranks, people come and go.

>Again, all I ask is that you respect his intelligence and insight.

You may be asking for too much. I don't require the respect of my intelligence
and insight in order to communicate with people. I respect logical arguments,
and I respect people who are capable of rejecting logically unsound arguments
when they become aware of them. The arguments that are more challenging to me
are those that are mostly valid and cogent but have small logical
contradictions within them. Blatantly illogical arguments can be too easily
refuted and offer less of a challenge.

Advertisements

In article <>, says...
>
>Jinkies is a superb linguist. He has mastered the art of
>communication.

By the way, the first statement is probably true, the second statement I
highly doubt. But I was a superb linguist and master of rhetoric before I even
discovered and embraced critical thinking and the tools of logic. I spent vast
amounts of energy repeatedly demonstrating the old adage that a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing.

(Jinkies) wrote in message news:<Wluzb.4761$bC.3349@clgrps13>...
> This post is particularly odd considering I didn't post it! This is very
> likely some sort of half-assed 'reverse psychology' trolling attempt, but
> taking your post at face value just for kicks, I appreciate that you recognize
> my devotion to furthering my intellect the body of knowledge at my disposal,
> but I disagree with your statement that people should 'sit back' and passively
> soak up everything I have to say. If I challenge people's conventions they
> will react. I know that times occur when engaging in an argument is no longer
> useful to me, but I find that the beginning of most arguments contain relevent
> questions.

Correct. It was not you (Jinkies) who posted this masterful piece of
prose. It was I. As for another trolling attempt, fear not. I compose
these posts as endearing tributes to your fresh perspectives and
challenges to claims made by others in the forum. Why should we take
what people post as "gospel truth" and fear to question it? I rather
enjoy the the fact that you actually take the time to read the posts
and bring up points that could ,to the dismay of others, invalidate
their arguments. It stimulates the thought process and causes some
people to reevaluate what they may have thought to be true.
>
>
> >I know he has passed the A+ exam and it
> >was but a small mental exercise on his part.
>
> You have no way of knowing whether I passed. I claimed I did pass but I also
> claimed that I found it difficult to pass, so if you are accepting me on my
> word that I passed, why are you not accepting me on my word that I found it
> difficult to pass?

A perfect example of my previously stated point above. This is true,
I made a claim with no factual evidence, save his word, to back it up.
>
> > His knowledge is far
> >superior then the "smartest" of your ranks.
>
> What ranks? This is a newsgroup where people who are seeking to pass A+ exams
> come for inspiration and information. There are no ranks, people come and go.

Ranks: A relative position or degree of value in a graded group

There are among you "members" of this group who hold varying degrees
of value. Yourself included, without which there would be little need
for the group.
>
>
> >Again, all I ask is that you respect his intelligence and insight.
>
> You may be asking for too much. I don't require the respect of my intelligence
> and insight in order to communicate with people. I respect logical arguments,
> and I respect people who are capable of rejecting logically unsound arguments
> when they become aware of them. The arguments that are more challenging to me
> are those that are mostly valid and cogent but have small logical
> contradictions within them. Blatantly illogical arguments can be too easily
> refuted and offer less of a challenge.

In article <>, says...
>
>
>> What ranks? This is a newsgroup where people who are seeking to pass A+
exams
>> come for inspiration and information. There are no ranks, people come and
go.
>
>
>Ranks: A relative position or degree of value in a graded group
>
>There are among you "members" of this group who hold varying degrees
>of value. Yourself included, without which there would be little need
>for the group.
>

Point taken. I was defensively questioning the context by which you were using
the term 'ranks'. Upon further defining the context in which you meant to use
the term, I understand what you meant.

In article <>,
says...
>
>
>It is a sad day when no one trusts even a simple post. What a cynical
>world.

It is kind of ironic that neither I nor my detractors were convinced your post
was sincere. For one thing I've never received such praise for my efforts.
Manifestations of that kind of verbiage being expressed from one person about
another is uncommon, except in cults. You and I may be members of a rare
breed, Sporky.

>
>Is it so hard to imagine that across the vastness of the Internet there
>is no other that could see value in the contributions which Jinkies has
>made to this forum?

I really appreciate that anyone at all can see the value in the contributions
I've made to this forum because there are some pretty impressive luminaries who
contribute here (Mike Meyes, David Groth, etc). I know that my perspective is
rare in this world, because I have struggled for every scrap of knowledge I've
ever obtained. A+ was difficult for me even though I am simultaenously
tackling far more high-brow subjects which I also find difficult. Ultimately I
have no way of knowing if I am contributing anything helpful. Usually when a
bunch of people insist that I am not contributing anything useful I am inclined
to believe they are engaging in communal reinforcement and appeal to
popularity, and that makes me think I must be contributing something
particularly useful and rare. But I can never be sure. Posts like yours
explicitly validate my contibutions. Unlike those who need many posters giving
communal reinforcement to know if their contributions are helpful, a single
post like yours is all I require. Of course I've learned to survive perfectly
well with no external reinforcement whatsoever but it's always nice to get just
the right amount. Thanks Sporky!

Enough cynicism. The uneducated rarely rise above the trifling
exercise of casting insults. I see now that logic and reason are of
little value to you and the author of the previous post.

I offer clear concise arguments as to the validity of Jinkies
contributions to the group and all I receive in return are insults and
puerile rhetoric.

If you were indeed paying attention to the entire thread, which
obviously is not the case, the point has been made that he does think
before he posts. His posts are usually designed to encourage critical
thinking and to question statements which dont hold up to a minimal
level of logical scrutiny (ie.. invalid arguments).

Forgive me if I as mistaken as Jinkies knows better than I his motives
for posting to the group. I hope I have not spoken for him in error.

In article <>, says...
>
>If you were indeed paying attention to the entire thread, which
>obviously is not the case, the point has been made that he does think
>before he posts. His posts are usually designed to encourage critical
>thinking and to question statements which dont hold up to a minimal
>level of logical scrutiny (ie.. invalid arguments).
>

True enough, and I welcomed criticism of my criticism of CompTIA, but I didn't
receive anything remotely critical about my comments, just the same old typical
ad hominem.

In article <>, says...
>
>If you were indeed paying attention to the entire thread, which
>obviously is not the case, the point has been made that he does think
>before he posts. His posts are usually designed to encourage critical
>thinking and to question statements which dont hold up to a minimal
>level of logical scrutiny (ie.. invalid arguments).
>
>Forgive me if I as mistaken as Jinkies knows better than I his motives
>for posting to the group. I hope I have not spoken for him in error.
>

You are mostly right about my motives, but I also like to play pranks.
Sometimes I want to prank somebody in my basement all night long, especially
Stiffly Stiffersons.

In article <>,
says...
>
>Jinkies, I am not talking about criticism against CompTIA! This was
>between you and I over a few of your other posts.... remember, you
>were also criticizing other people, including me? Now you bring in
>your self-inflicted reinforcements! Knock it off! Now we are getting
>double the BS!
>
>

Kathy, I'm not interested in participating in your drama. You'll have to get
your attention elsewhere.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!